RespondenAge Gender M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Mean JP1

1 5 4 4 5 4 4.4 3
2 4 3 3 3 3 3.2 4
3 4 4 4 4 3 3.8 3
4 2 3 2 3 3 2.6 2
5 1 3 4 3 3 2.8 1
6 3 5 4 4 4 4 3
(+/-) 0.81-0.99 Very Strong Relationship
(+/-) 0.61-0.80 Strong Relatipomnnship
(+/-) 0.41-0.60 Moderate
Hypothesis Testing (+/-) 0.21-0.40 Weak
I. Research Question (+/-) 0.01 -0.20 Very Weak
Is there a significant relationship between the management practices of MBHTE employers and the job performanc

II. Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis; there is no significant relationship between the management practices of MBHTE employers a
Alternative Hypothesithere is a significant relationship between the management practices of MBHTE employers an

III. Level of Significance:

a = 0.05

IV. Test Statistics

Pearson Product Moment of Coefficient Correlation r
r-value = 0.46
p-value = 0.29

V. Decision Rule
If the p-value is less than 0.05 level of signifivcance, reject the null hypopthesis

VI Conclusion
since the p-value = 0.29 is greater than 0.05 significance level, then we failed to reject the null hypothesis

there is no significant relationship between the management practices of MBHTE employers and the job performan
 JP2 JP3 JP4 MEAN MP Management Practices and Employees' Job Performance in MBHTE
3 4 3 3.25 4.4
5 4 4 4.25 3.2 SOP
4 3 3 3.25 3.8 1. to what extent is the utilization of the management practices by the r
3 2 3 2.5 2.6 2. to what extent is the job performance of the employees?
3 4 3 2.75 2.8 3
5 4 4 4 4

MEAN MP
MEAN 1
oyers and the job performances of their employees? MP 0.459292 1

actices of MBHTE employers and the job performances of their employees.

ctices of MBHTE employers and the job performances of their employees. SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.459292
R Square 0.210949
Adjusted R 0.013687
Standard E 0.678439
Observatio 6

ANOVA
df SS
Regression 1 0.492215
Residual 4 1.841118
Total 5 2.333333
t the null hypothesis
Coefficients
Standard Error
ployers and the job performances of their employees. Intercept 1.805263 1.503401
X Variable 0.440789 0.42625

PROBABILITY OUTPUT

Percentile Y
8.333333 2.5
25 2.75
41.66667 3.25
58.33333 3.25
75 4
91.66667 4.25
 b Performance in MBHTE

management practices by the respondents?

f the employees?

Normal Probability Plot

5
4
3
2
Y

1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Sample Percentile
MS F Significance F
0.492215 1.069382 0.359505
0.46028

t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
1.200786 0.296078 -2.368848 5.979374 -2.368848 5.979374
1.034109 0.359505 -0.742671 1.62425 -0.742671 1.62425
Probability Plot

40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sample Percentile
 Group A Group B Group C Research question
8.5 10 9 si there a significant difference in the levels of hair softness of Group A a
7 9.02 6.12
5.12 3.16 5 Hypothesis:
3.02 4.18 4 Ho: there is no significant difference in the levels of hair softness of Group A
4.53 5.12 2 Ha there is a significant difference in the levels of hair softness of Group A a
5.12 6.12 1
6.08 3.19 1 Test Statistics
9.12 2.13 1
6.06125 5.365 3.64

Mobarac R. dimasindel

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
8.5 7 39.99 5.712857 3.79229
10 7 32.92 4.702857 5.397024
9 7 20.12 2.874286 4.603962

ANOVA
Source of VariationSS df MS F P-value F crit
Between G 28.98294 2 14.49147 3.151856 0.06705 3.554557
Within Gro 82.75966 18 4.597759

Total 111.7426 20
s of hair softness of Group A and Group B respondents after using Sunsilk shampoo?

els of hair softness of Group A and Group B respondents after using Sunsilk shampoo
s of hair softness of Group A and Group B respondents after using Sunsilk shampoo

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

8.5 10
Mean 5.71285714285714 4.702857
Variance 3.79229047619047 5.397024
Observations 7 7
Hypothesized Mean Di 0
df 12
t Stat 0.881513243196333
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.197676935017791
t Critical one-tail 1.78228755564932
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.395353870035582
t Critical two-tail 2.17881282966723